Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple in Full Support of Naming Alabama Anti-Discrimination Bill After Tim Cook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As a shareholder I only care about Tim in so far as the job he's doing as CEO of Apple. At Apple it should be all about the products, not about Tim Cook.
I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately American politics and media like their 'stories'.
I doubt it since the legislator said she understood Apple's position. I never heard about the story until Apple's reversal.
----------
Apple could have stuck with their original position. It wasn't in unreasonable position and everyone knows where Cook stands so I doubt there would be any confusion.
Naming a law after someone
Is almost always a bad idea.
However, even when done the concept is that if the law named after the person had existed some tragedy might not have happened.
Tim Cook is CEO of one of the largest companies in the world. Naming it after him almost undermines the law. Like passing a law named after Barack Obama meant to fight discrimination against African Americans running for political office.
Sooo... This is just shameless publicity for the law in a very nonsensical way.
Is almost always a bad idea.
However, even when done the concept is that if the law named after the person had existed some tragedy might not have happened.
Tim Cook is CEO of one of the largest companies in the world. Naming it after him almost undermines the law. Like passing a law named after Barack Obama meant to fight discrimination against African Americans running for political office.
Sooo... This is just shameless publicity for the law in a very nonsensical way.
It's not OK to attack, abuse, or deny rights to people who are homosexual. Never has been. Never will be.
Yet it seems completely acceptable to attack people who have concerns about homosexual behavior; just having those concerns makes you free game for labels like "bigot" or "homophobe." Not sure when free speech became the right of everyone but social conservatives, but it looks like it's happened.
(If you don't believe it, watch the reaction to this post or similar ones.)
Yet it seems completely acceptable to attack people who have concerns about homosexual behavior; just having those concerns makes you free game for labels like "bigot" or "homophobe." Not sure when free speech became the right of everyone but social conservatives, but it looks like it's happened.
(If you don't believe it, watch the reaction to this post or similar ones.)
You had me until you said this. What concerns do you have about a separate and distinct being? It's not contagious. It's not Ebola. Their behavior should have nothing to do with you.
It's worth kicking that question around.
I'd say it is, because one thing that differentiates Apple is its ostentatiousness in social-justice issues... phrasing that as one trained in marketing I intend in an admiring way. Apple, more than any company anywhere near its size, has a reputation as being on what's commonly regarded as the right side of history on topics of social justice.
It's called standing for something. And being regarded as something other than an avaricious, faceless corporation is a good thing from a goodwill standpoint. This benefits the shareholder because it benefits the bottom line, as corporate goodwill tends to do.
They tend their image carefully, and I'd bet whoever initially turned this down at Apple HQ got a little 5 a.m. voicemail from Tim.
This is what wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Orientation_and_behavior
What wikipedia says is not always everyone elses definition.
He's an openly gay CEO from Alabama. Its as simple as that.
I'm all for the bill, but I agree naming it after Cook is pretty silly.
Social conservatives are absolutely entitled to free speech--only most of them, like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Palin, charge a fortune for it. What social conservatives don't have, though, is respect. Most reasonable people regard such mutterings about having "concerns about homosexual behavior" as ample evidence of ignorance, prejudice, and a desire to impose their own moral code on other people. And, of course, if you are an employer accused of denying legally-mandated equal rights to homosexual applicants or employees, comments about your "concerns" may well be presented as evidence that you have unlawfully discriminated against homosexuals in your hiring or employment practices that a jury will have to consider.
But, mostly, you see, it's just that social conservatives are and always have been on the wrong side of history You would have loved the 1950's, but time has passed social conservatives by, and as time goes on, as the demographics of the country change, as people get used to accepting homosexuals in their communities and seeing that their presence doesn't destroy anyone else's marriage and that their children haven't been molested, you'll see social conservatives being more and more ostracized. You must remember that at one time George Wallace, a sterling social conservative, expressed views that were embraced by a goodly number of Americans. Today, a half-century later, those openly denigrating black people because they are, you know, black, are virtually universally condemned, just as anti-homosexuals will be very soon, if not already.
On the other hand, look on the bright side--I hear social conservatives are doing a helluva job battling that vicious War Against Christmas.
So the government isn't going to jail social conservatives for being idiotically wrong on abortion, contraception, long hair, hip-hop music, evolution, prayer in schools, the gold standard, or intolerance of government deficit spending to recover from a demand shock at the lower bound. You needn't worry about being fined or thrown in jail. You just might want to buy a good pair of ear plugs because there is nothing in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Mayflower Compact that is going to save anyone from the criticism of his fellow citizens.
Where else is it supposed to be? In the software subforum?
----------
They mention it, because he gave that speech in Alabama and said that he had to deal with discrimination when he was younger and he wants to give moral support to others who might be in that position. I agree though that it really is a non-issue imo.
I think people should tolerate and leave each other be as much as possible.
Would save a lot of pointless trouble. The mods just closed an endless thread about this topic, now here we go all over again ....
----------
Wouldn't it be hilarious if one of the letters in his name would be a "c" instead of an "o"?
There are enough "poop and scoot" posters on other sites, and people that set up accounts just to flame others. Bateast here, you have to put in an effort to be able to post to PRSI.
It took me about a week of posting to get to 100; imagine the tone here if all it took was sign up and you're done. If you think it's the sewer now, it can get worse.
The only discrimination here is effort that you put into the site.
Nothing else, as far as MR goes.
----------
Indeed it does.
You want to build trust with the voters, tell people what it does, not try to sugarcoat*, or dance around it.
The Tim Cook Homosexuality Antidiscrimination Bill of 2015 would, at least be telling the truth. (Or Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Antidiscrimination Bill in honor of Tim Cook)
Vote yes or no, but playing footsie is a bit condescending to all.
*i don't mean sugarcoat as a pejorative, but as a way to lie to people by not saying what it is, but as they are pulling a fast one, like saying, "I am shocked that you are against the Tim Cook Economic Development Act; don't you want economic development?" But rather, "I am shocked that you are against the Tim Cook Homosexuality Antidiscrimination Bill of 2015. Why is that, Senator?" If you want civility in government, quit lying to people.
Last edited:
I have put enough effort into the side over the years. As have you. Articles should not be hidden away just because some people here feel certain subjects should not be out in the open for everyone to comment on. The moderators here do a great job and they can moderate these topics if they were in the general article section of the forum as they should be. Not a hard job for moderators ad good as the ones here.
Tim Cook wants everyone to be treated equally. But with attitudes like this it'll never happen. People here need to heed TC's message.
In the general article forum with all the other news articles. Why move this one to a special sub forum. Does the word discrimination make people here blush and they don't want everyone discussing it?
***************
My stance on this is that everyone is equal. And everyone one and every article deserves to be treated equally. Not putting some articles in PRSI because it says the word gay once or because it's about a non white person or because it says the word discrimination. True equality does not need special areas to hide things in. In true equality everything would be out in the open and freely discussed by all.
The only problem with all this way of thinking is that if everyone is either homosexual or killed before birth, there soon won't be any humans left. My extreme leftist sister would be pleased.
Usually because it's named after a person in honor of the struggle they went through, or something that happened to them.
Like this one from Baltimore.
So if something tragic happens to someone, and new legislation is formed to prevent it from happening, the legislation may be named in that person's honor.
I would agree, but then MacRumors would do it's usual thing and discriminate against another group of people.
I personally think anything not dealing with technology 100% should just go somewhere else.
That being said, I'd have to make exceptions for Beats and Foxconn articles, which should go in PRSI as well, because they both usually devolve into racial insults against blacks and Asians, even if nothing is said about race in the article. Someone somewhere will have an axe to grind about minorities and then use that thread to spew their hate . . . . . as has been done here already so it seems.
Last edited:
Except homosexuality isn't a choice, so you can't just become homosexual. Would you prefer gay people repress their natural sexuality and force themselves to have heterosexual sex, even if they can't get it up, just to satisfy the likes of you? Your sister is pro-choice and pro-marriage? Sounds like a smart gal.
People have free speech! I wish everyone spoke their minds freely so we would know who all the bigots and nice people are.
Free speech works both ways, one can criticize gays and I can freely label those that do that as bigots.
If this bill gains public awareness by associating Tim Cook and Apple with it then more power to it.